Agenda item

            The Committee was advised that the following application had been referred to it by an Elected Member. 

            It was agreed that the Case officer’s report for any future applications which had been referred to the Committee by a Member would include the material planning reasons so as to provide it with a better understanding of the Member’s concerns.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that permission was sought for a part two storey and single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling.

            The Committee was advised that five representations had been received in relation to the application, raising issues including over dominance, overshadowing/loss of light, scale and massing and boundary issues. 

            The Principal Planning officer outlined that the proposal had been amended and reduced during the processing of the application, the most recent amendment having been received on 6th January, 2020.  She explained that neighbours had been re-notified with the most recent proposals.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, where five further objections had been received.  The Principal Planning officer provided the case officer’s response to the points raised and confirmed to the Members that it was considered that there would be no harmful overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of daylight to the properties, given the separation distances.

            The Principal Planning officer explained to the Committee that the proposed extension would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area and that it was considered to be sympathetic in its built form, scale and massing.  The Members were advised that the 45 degree angle test had shown that the proposal would not raise any issues in relation to overshadowing or loss of light to neighbouring dwellings.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. W. Crowe, a neighbour, to the meeting.  He explained that he had concerns with the proposals as he felt that it would impact on the view from his kitchen window.  He also advised the Committee that he felt that the measurement for the 45 degree angle test in the Case officer’s report was incorrect, as he did not believe that they had been taken from the mid-point of his window.

            In response to queries from Members, the Principal Planning officer explained that the 45 degree angle test was a guide for Planners and was not a policy test. 

            After discussion, the Planning Manager advised the Committee that it could agree to grant approval the application, subject to the officers verifying that the measurement in relation to the 45 degree angle test was correct.  He explained that, in the event that the figure was incorrect upon re-measuring, the application would be submitted for the Committee’s consideration the following month, as the Committee was required to have the correct information in order to make a decision.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to checking of the measurement of the 45 degree angle test, and to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.